著者
毛利 亜樹
出版者
一般財団法人 アジア政経学会
雑誌
アジア研究 (ISSN:00449237)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.69, no.3, pp.1-17, 2023-07-31 (Released:2023-08-19)
参考文献数
97

This paper attempts to clarify why the political term, “the 3 million square kilometers of Chinese marine territory,” formed in Chinese political discourse by close examination of Chinese domestic politics from 1980 to 1996, which the literature has not yet fully addressed. It also discusses how Chinese experts calculated the legal coherence between the term and the United Nations of Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). One finding is that then-director of the State Oceanic Agency, Ruo Yuru, who believed that China lagged behind neighboring countries in ensuring maritime rights in the multiple maritime zones China could claim under UNCLOS, proposed the term “300 million square meters of Chinese marine territory” in 1984 to obtain domestic support for maritime development policy. The term, which conflates territorial water, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf into “un-unified space” under Chinese jurisdiction, was designed to appeal broadly to Chinese domestic actors who were unfamiliar with UNCLOS and who had focused on land development rather than the sea. Although Ruo’s conception of the “300 million square meters of Chinese marine territory” maintained compliance with the legal difference between sovereignty and sovereign rights defined by UNCLOS, the term may shape the views of Chinese actors in these maritime zones who perceive it as the “sovereign territory” of China because the different maritime zones defined by UNCLOS is understood through a common emphasis on China’s jurisdiction. The other finding is the Chinese government’s careful handling of the term, including replacing the term “marine territory” with “jurisdictional water” in more authoritative sources. This suggests that the government of China and Chinese experts apparently understand that the term contradicts the legal conception laid out by UNCLOS, which differentiates between sovereignty and sovereign rights, and potentially poses diplomatic problems with neighboring maritime countries. Even after UNCLOS came into force in China in 1996, some Chinese experts criticized the nationalistic view of “marine territory” as sovereign territory. However, despite careful handling of the term by the Chinese government, due to strong domestic consensus on using international law as a tool for ensuring China’s maritime rights, a nationalistic understanding of “marine territory” as “sovereign territory” has been accepted as fait accompli in China as its maritime policy develops.